Awards

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Let's begin with what this isn't. It isn't a final statement on anything. It's the opening to a discussion and the discussion is a look at how we can win.

The proposals and ideas that follow are not in compliance with any dogma. They do not call for abandoning principles, but they do call for pragmatic action in the here and now in order to secure the victory of those principles. That's a tricky line, but that's also how political battles are won.

Plenty of readers will have philosophical objections to some of what follows and I respect that, but you can either wait for the public to come around or retreat to high ground and wait for everything to collapse. Neither is a very useful strategy and it behooves us to remember that the left did not go up into the hills and wait for us to come around. They used these strategies to win.

1. We Are Going to Take Care of You

Laying out grand arguments. The romance of the open marketplace and the responsibility to our children are big ideas. Breaking them down into bite sized pieces and hitting people directly on the impact it will have on them is far more useful.

But the bigger problem is that we no longer have a united electorate that can be spoken to as if there is one America. A big argument for the future of the nation does not resonate with many people. It has no impact at all on many minority groups and even on many non-minority groups by class who think in terms of how something will affect them locally, not nationally.

Obama did not bother with big arguments. He made small arguments to different groups and those groups turned out for him.

Romney tried to talk to Americans about responsibility and his turnout ended up being lower than the turnout of those looking out for their own group interests.

Big arguments fracture into someone else's responsibility. Small arguments zero in on local fears that "my group" will lose out. And that makes them more potent.

What does all this mean? It means that we will have to become community organizers. We will have to find and engage people who often don't even bother to vote by tying their economic interests to our policies. And we will have to narrow that focus as much as possible, organizing at the bottom in sync with a larger argument.

We will not be making one big argument, but a thousand little arguments that fit a common theme. That means organizing coal miners against the EPA, organizing doctors against ObamaCare and similarly organizing workers and owners in every field, focusing on narrow issues that directly affect them, taking an item of legislation, a specific regulation, an omission that bothers them and turning it into our issue and packaging that issue within the larger program.

If we can do this, if we can make our politics bottom up, instead of top down, then we will be able to bring out a partisan tribal vote that is just as committed to voting Republican as welfare voters are to voting for free phones.

The Democrats have a simple appeal. "We are going to take care of you." They can use community groups to send that message to entire groups. We are going to have to be able to do something similar, not necessarily by race, but by profession and class, not with freebies, but by protecting their ability to earn a living and being there as a support structure for their economic ambitions.

Voters on principle are not enough. Voters coming out against Obama are not enough. We need voters who will come out because they have a direct and compelling interest, not in an abstract and grand problem, like the national debt, but in their ability to stay employed and earn a living.

2. The Social is Political

Sorry, but fiscally conservative and socially liberal does not work. If you doubt that, go look at the exit poll data.

A nation of Julias and their offspring are never going to vote fiscally conservative. Not unless they are also socially conservative or financially well off. A nation of Julias want security, they want a pater familias by proxy and that is going to be the government and the taxpayer.

If the American family continues breaking down, then fiscal conservatism is a dead letter. The family is an economic unit. A single parent family is too precarious and too vulnerable for that. Not every single parent family, but enough of them taken together on average are. Too much can go wrong and there is a much stronger need for security in the form of a safety net and antipathy to any talk of financial reform.

A libertarian democracy would only work with a strong sense of national character and the left has been smashing away at that for generations.

If you want fiscal conservatism, the only path that has any long term chance of success is through the rebuilding of the family. The only way that people will be less dependent on the government is if they have stable social and family structures. Absent fathers mean single families. Single families mean that the government is now everyone's father. There is no way to break this cycle without also breaking democracy.

The objective goes beyond rebuilding the family. It means setting up stable social and community groups to rebuild much of what has been lost over the last two generations. A healthy community whose members support each other, under religious or community groups, is less uncertain and dependent on the government.

If we seriously want to end the welfare state, we will first have to end the conditions of social insecurity that make it necessary. There are various paths to doing that, but tackling the symptom in isolation will just lead to another neurotic effort by the Julias to protect their economic structure.

This isn't a moral question, it's a practical question. And the exit data makes it very clear that there is a sizable gap between how married and unmarried people approach the Republican Party. That's the social element and socially liberal leads to fiscally liberal. We can either deal with this, and there are various creative solutions, most of which will allow us to also organize voters, or we can pretend it doesn't exist and that we just need to yell at people about being parasites addicted to entitlements.

3. The Minority Vote

Let me be blunt here. This doesn't come down to race. It comes down to money. Clinton beat Obama among blacks in South Carolina. Running our own minority candidates does not mean we will win the minority vote.

Sure race has a powerful appeal in politics, but the big ticket item is money. Democrats have the minority vote because they have connections down to community groups. The Democrats send money down the pipeline, the community groups hand out the benefits and guide their communities through life, while telling them how to vote.

It's Community Organizing 101.

Do we want a chunk of that vote? It will cost us. We will not only have to provide money, which is meaningless because Republican presidents, senators and governors have pumped untold billions into that well, but we'll have to build the community infrastructure, recruit and empower locals who will then run local organizations that will take the money, provide benefits and route voters our way.

Hypothetically speaking, if the Republicans weren't completely clueless, their first act after getting their hands on the till, would have been to cut off every single minority organization that's actually a front for Democratic politics, no grants, no benefits routed through them, no contracts of any kind, while pushing that money through to conservative minority groups.

It's not a surefire plan and playing catch-up in this area would be exhausting, but Asians are a fast growing population, their immigration boom is somewhat new, and building that infrastructure among them would be doable. In some cases it has been done.

Of course we're opposed to this kind of thing on principle. But controlling the process would also allow us to control the outcome. Democratic community groups train dependency. We could actually steward business associations that would be far healthier.

And here's one big thing about the minority vote. There is no minority vote. When I talk about Asians, there are actually dozens of communities, from Koreans to Vietnamese, also in various flavors, two waves of Chinese immigrants from Mainland China, not counting Taiwan, and lots more. These groups have things in common, but they also have significant differences, and their internal relations are often frayed and they compete for resources, for access and power.

The same is true for the Latino vote. Guess how well Mexican and Puerto Rican community groups get along? And look into some of the tensions between Afro-Latinos and Latinos. There are endless subdivisions and that means endless possibilities for splintering Democratic alliances and breaking off strategic pieces of demographic groups in strategic districts.

Again. Community Organizing 101.

Sure the Democratic Party in District ZZ has an Asian wing and feeds money and benefits to three community centers. All of whom happen to be run by members of the Chang family who are old school and out of touch with the new immigrants. And the Hmong feel like they're being entirely ignored and routed to the old Chinese leadership because to the Democratic Party, every Asian is the same.

You want to play the game of tribes? Play it to win. It's not as hard as it looks when you stop thinking in terms of "THEM" and "US" and start thinking of a lot of subgroups full of grievances and needs whose leaders want power and whose followers want help. They don't care all that much about big issues. Mostly their needs are tribal and communal. Deal with that, find the chiefs, give them the power to be leaders by taking care of the Indians, and you have a foothold.

4. Immigration

The whole section above is a snapshot of why fiscal conservatism and immigration don't mix. Immigration means insecure populations, social fractures as the old world adjusts to the new, and the accompanying need for a social safety net.

Getting the Latino vote will require opening up the doors to Mexico. And if we do that, we might get Bush's 40 percent while the other guys get the 60 percent. To go from 27 to 40, we have to increase the percent of the population that goes 60/40 for the other guys.

And that's just not sustainable. In the short run it might help us win elections, but every election we win by bending on immigration makes future elections all but unwinnable. The numbers do not add up.

Could we get 60 percent of the Latino vote? Probably not. Social conservatism seems like a natural appeal, but doesn't really pay the rent. Could we break even? Maybe. So long as we're willing to spend as much as it takes and compete for the Latino vote, as laid out in the above section.

Some social conservatives see a potential victory strategy in abandoning fiscal conservatism and hoping that the weight of the Latino vote kills social liberalism. But that's not really how it works out. If the Latino vote were really socially conservative, Latin America would be a very different place.

Latinos and Blacks are not fans of abortion and homosexuality. That doesn't make them principled social conservatives. It's a common attitude outside the West.

5. Forget the 47 Percent

No, I don't think Romney's comment did much damage, but the attitude behind it does. Forget the latest batch of numbers from Heritage or the National Review for the moment and start thinking in human terms.

Talking about the 47 percent sets up a massive bloc and it's not helpful because it tells people that we want to cut a wide swathe of destruction through the country. That is the opposite of the approach we should be taking.

It's easier to focus on wedge issues. Immigrant benefits are unpopular. Take a group that is closely associated with Obama that eats up a lot of benefits. Focus in on what a drain they are. And then you get support for making cuts that target the "other" people.

The Democrats are forced to fight unpopular battles to protect unpopular constituencies and working class voters are won over because we aren't out to make life hard for them, we're making it hard for people who never worked a day in their life and expect everything.

Republicans used to understand tactics like these, but a politically correct tone deafness has taken over. Instead there are big technocratic plans that affect everyone and that is not the place to start.

The key principle is that you cut not based on size, but based on unpopularity, you work from outside in, instead of announcing that you brought a chainsaw and want to chop down a forest. Even if you can make the case for it, it will be unpopular and you won't get to cut anything at all.

Reagan understood this kind of tactic. Romney and that whole crowd do not. And that is why they lost out on much of the working class, which felt personally threatened and did not feel committed to any reforms.

People naturally feel that there are groups which abuse their benefits. Focusing on these groups sets the principle and grants moral legitimacy to the task.

The Democrats understand that you don't sell austerity. You sell class warfare. Republicans need to learn the same lesson. Don't sell austerity, go after the ObamaPhoniacs.

The Dems can promise to reward the poor and middle class at the expense of the rich. The Republican can promise to reward the productive at the expense of the parasites. We don't need a 47 percent. We need a 1 percent of the lowest dregs, the ones who abuse and game the system, who every non-bleeding heart would think deserve a boot in the ass. They are our 1 percent and everyone are part of our 99 percent.

6. Talking About Social Issues

Above, I said that financial reforms were impossible without social reforms. But that doesn't mean that we need to talk about them.

The Democrats always supported gay rights, but they were careful about talking about that in front of audiences and populations where that would be a minus. Obama was against gay marriage until the numbers told that the negatives would no longer hurt him.

The Republicans do the opposite. Republicans insist on candidates officially denouncing abortion, even though they have no intention of ever doing anything about it, just to score points with social conservatives. And all this accomplishes nothing.

Instead of having candidates who have no intention of doing anything about social issues talk about them to prove their sincerity, it would be far better to have sincere candidates who don't talk about the issues except in very closed forums, but do have plans for taking action on them.

That would require a strategic reevaluation on the part of social conservatives and candidates. It would mean playing the long game, rather than making these empty professions that mean nothing.

If a social issue is a high negative, then don't talk about it until you can do something about it. Work behind the scenes to tilt the balance. Do what the left does, be outwardly moderate and inwardly committed.

7. Losing is Part of the Process of Winning

The long game on winning an argument is by losing elections. The short game to winning elections is by losing the argument, seizing the center and abandoning your beliefs.

Sometimes elections have to be lost in a good cause. Sometimes they have to be done as part of the process of making an argument that the public is still not ready for.

The public wasn't ready for Goldwater, but it was ready for Reagan. Goldwater didn't lose. He prepared the ground for Reagan.

The left understands this process quite well. It fights battles and takes strategic losses to advance its arguments and accustom the voters to them. These sacrifice plays help it advance further.

The great thing that we must remember about defeat is that there are two kinds of defeats. Defeats with a purpose and defeats without a purpose. Defeats with a purpose accomplish something, even if it is only to air an argument. Defeats without a purpose do not.

Only time will tell which of these the election of 2012 was.

52
comments:

L.G.
said...

Re Item #1: Bottom Up vs Top Down nails the heart of why the GOP failed. It is seen in every Huge corporation. While the right rails against increasing red tape, it has been complicite in building it into government resulting in waste and insulating non-essential federal jobs created to further the interest of a lobbyist. The left is no less guilty. But no house was ever built from the top down. Yet we see corporations operating this way, spinning and juggling figures from one account to another (witness the magical surplus' of the clinton years, inflated facebook share values, social security lock boxes, you can see this fuzzy math in play anywhere.) And belly aching about the foundations eroding and the sky falling down around us, as our fiscal house collaspes demands new builders who know a thing or two about sound architecture of a structure, be it a home or a company or a government. Bottoms up, people! Well said, D.G.

Obama has lied about almost everything including who he really may be. Yet, people believed in him a second time in spite of his lies, deception and evasions. This indicates a problem with the people and that is hard to overcome.

Black ministries have been and are receiving messaging. That messaging is being preached at the pulpits. I can't speak for lefty white ministries because I don't have any communications with such persons. I only know what I've been told by a friend that has had a ministry for about twenty five years.

When this friend and I spoke at length Saturday morning over coffee and some stuff we collaborate on together, I asked if he believed in the voter fraud stories that were coming out. He said no, that's untrue but what is true is the voter suppression that's rampant across the country.

That's one example of the deny and flip that a discussion of politics nearly always brings about with my friend. I saw a gorgeous, well-designed site on his laptop that was obviously meant for leadership amongst churches and topics continue to speak of to parishioners. I did a double-take when I saw it (a) because he left it open and walked away and (b) it was sort of a confirmation of what has always been denied.

I didn't ask if there was uniform messaging because I felt like I'd get another denial. I did tell him I saw the page on his laptop and I never agreed with the premise of mixing politics and religion. His reply was that it was all Gods work and that communication was imperative for people to know "the truth".

There was some more back and forth but he said something that he's said many times before the campaign cycle and it really smacks of some more of that "messaging" because I read it/hear it a lot. I just find it interesting. Anyways, what he says is "Your guy lost, you need to find a way to deal with it."

Lemon, I agree. I also think that we're wasting time trying to figure out how to prevail in an honest election, when my instincts tell me that this election was fraud. Perhaps I cannot articulate my thoughts just yet, but these election results do not make sense. How could there be a lower republican and conservative turn out this year than 4 years ago; it is simply unbelievable. People saw what Obama was like, they knew how important this election was, and to say that they just stayed home....this needs to be investigated and the occupiers in the White House are arrogant and sloppy. This scam will fall apart. It may be covered up for a while and the MSM will play their part in the cover-up, but eventually the truth will come out.

Interesting perspective. How to make a republican? Give people the tools to take care of themselves. a true stake in the economy and they will not want to feed the leeches. Republicans need to understand that it is how they allow themselves to be perceived and how they present themselves that hurts their brand. They do come off as unfeeling and mean. I don't think its just about community organizing. Its about reteaching generations of Americans that we have allowed to be indoctrinated by unAmerican philosophies.We need to begin with education.. Fight the textbooks company and the school boards. Fight the colleges and the media. Teach your children and give them the strength to stand up for what they believe in.

By the way you can be a fiscal conservative and socially liberal. I am one of those people.Believing in social liberty doesn't mean you pay for everything for everyone, it means what people do as adults is generally not your business.It means seeing people as human beings first and not sinners first is an important way to view the world. Republicans forget that moralizing is a sign of hubris. That the republican party makes "social issues" a huge part of who they happen to be is also a reason they turn people off.

Next help people to be the best that they can be. We have allowed a "laissez-faire" concept to tell people that they are on their own. In a world that is so rapidly changing and that there is no social support that is frightening. This is not Little House on the Prairie. Most people do not have extended family support and they do turn to the government for help. It is no surprise that single mothers/parents went overwhelmingly for Obama.It is all they have. Ask any parent of a special needs child what that is like and they will give you a long answer of what it means to be isolated by the world and that the government is the only system that offers any help at all.

Society as a whole needs to reexamine itself and find out what it has done wrong. When people think that they can rely on the faceless government more than their next door neighbor it says more about how selfish and venal the USA has become than the reach of the government.

There are lots of former pro-O voters that refused to vote this time. I personally know of ten. These people are turned off by the class warfare tactics. They went to college, became highly employable in tech, entertainment, quick food franchising and medicine. They built their own businesses and were living the dream til they realized what they'd voted in was a dangerous puppet that spoke from both sides of its mouth.

All but one are registered Dems. Three are Caucasians, one hails from the Middle East, one is Hispanic and the rest are Asians. If we'd had a candidate that more appealed to this type of group than the incumbent that no longer appealed to them, they may have not stayed home.

Elections are no longer about ideas and are hardly about voters. It is about organization. Organization tells people how to vote, directs lots of money (mostly siphoned from the govmt), and turns out raw numbers of people.

The Right cannot win because it controls less votes through these organizations. The Left is perpetually organizing through this standing infrastructure. The Left co-opts non-core messages about health, environment, etc. The Left can manufacture votes through GOTV efforts or by focusing registrations through busing or college campuses.

Until and unless the Right comes up with a bigger plan, it cannot consistently win. Organizing is antithetical to the instincts of the Right.

Stella Paul • Rebranding the Democrats • Nov 12, 2012 : The Democrats are masters of political language ... Basically, they have two tricks. [1] They concoct a simple negative label for anything they want to defeat and then relentlessly shriek it in unison. You know the drill: "racist," "homophobe," "bigot," "right-wing lunatic" etc. [2] Then, they sanctify with positive language whatever lunacy they're in the mood to shove down our throats today. Consider the irrefutable beatific glow of "economic justice" and "social justice." Once something is defined as "justice," you're automatically the bad guy for resisting. What's wrong with you? Don't you want justice?...We have a simple, single message: Democrats are destructive. They destroy things. Lives, economies, families, health. Our message has the incomparable advantage of being true, while their messages are putrid lies. The unavoidable fact is that Americans have now voted for tyranny. Millions of us are not ready to submit, but neither are we ready to go on tax strike and get hauled off to jail or to swarm onto the streets and playact revolution. But maybe we can do what they've done to us for so many years and tactically deploy language against them. It's not comfortable for most of us to aggressively maneuver conversations, but nothing is going to be comfortable now.

That's the interesting approach, the positive approach - sell capitalism and self-reliance. Is there a market for it? Sure. If coupled with evidence that the individual is rewarded with money, career, comfort, status and self-worth as a result of voting conservative, or thinking conservative.

The real question (aside from possible significant voter fraud) seems to be 'why did Obama actually win a second term?' It's a shocking result. But I never did and do not believe that all '47%' are 'handout' people. Many of them, yes.

The approach you outline here assumes the same thing, I believe, and assumes that a good chunk of those presently somewhat dependent on gov't (or more dependent than conservatives, who also depend on gov't, after all) are ready to switch.

And this is a very important message - selling the positive. On most blogs like Breitbart and others, the vast majority of comments are taken up with denouncing Obama and the Left, not outlining a realistic alternative. Those who do prescribe alternative medicine usually advertise for civil war or secession. Neither is realistic at this time.

I agree with 5-7, but it doesn't address the elephant in the room. How do we combat the decades and multiple generations of people who, to put it bluntly, are not very bright, think that they are, and spent many years from kindergarten to grad school being hammered socially, economically and everything else from Far Left Extreme "educators"??? How do we combat all the propaganda that has been fed to these same people through Television, Movies, Music and the Mainstream Media?

I think the ultimate problem here is that you have a message being completely controlled by Leftists to the point that things that once seemed heinous are now normalized. Abortion is normal in society today. This used to be thought of as disgusting. Freedom of Sexuality is proper dinner discussion now. World Appeasement is considered brilliant strategy, and the media will refuse to show the actual repercussions of such policy. Keynesian Economic strategy is considered sane strategy now. Fiscal responsibility is laughed at by the masses.

No matter what strategy the Republicans use going forward, mark my word, all the negative will be blamed on Republicans. If Republicans negotiate higher taxes, and this sinks the economy, Democrats will be free and clear of the Fall Out. If they fight against High Taxes, they will be called obstructionists, and be blamed for whatever state the economy is in. And the brainwashed masses will go along with it.

I still say Republicans should only involve themselves IF the bills proposed by Democrats weaken the Constitution, and only then. No more Paul Ryan types offering up a Plan of their own just to be demonized for it. If we keep on pretending our society is ok in its current state and play politics as usual, Dems will be in charge for a long time to come until full Socialism is the only option. And that is their plan.

Daniel - with all respect - we had massive voter fruad. Cloward Piven with mobs flooding precincts late election night. The TV news media was in on it calling elections early. The GOP, Romney and pundits are silent. The fraud was massive. Only Allen West is standing up against it. It happened and why would they not do it again? It is like a flash mob robbing a store. They get away with it every time.

The vote fraud issue is plaguing me today. I reread a piece by Pam Geller on it, and have had different posts about the topic playing through my mind. I am also convinced it played a key role in the election.

If in fact fraud was a critical factor in the victory or 'victory' of BHO, what then?

@Anonymous: Style masquerading as substance. Wrong masquerading as right. Evil masquerading as good. While pursuing their less obvious agendas. It is true about spammers. It is true about modern day Democrats. And sadly, it is also true about many modern day Republicans. Anyway, good luck including spammers to anything of value.

Fraud is critical in most Dem victories. I wrote about this before the election.

You have to win victories by higher margins to compensate for voter fraud. And then you have to try and implement whatever security measures are possible, but you're never going to entirely make it go away.

Points taken, Daniel. It may be, though, that the fraud this time was either greater than in the past or more cleverly implemented (by targeting key states or even specific, limited counties within those states - and doing this in a selected number of key states). In any case, it should be appealed if identified, and Romney conceded too early given evidence of it.

We are going to have to be able to do something similar, not necessarily by race, but by profession and class, not with freebies, but by protecting their ability to earn a living and being there as a support structure for their economic ambitions.

The whole problem stems from too many people now finding immoral behavior acceptable. I'm guessing that 90% of this nation's people are just opportunists. The other ten percent actually live by principals, both good and evil. If 350 million people are saying "what's in it for me?" and it doesn't really matter what happens to his neighbor, we are DESTINED to FAIL. There is simply no longer a majority electorate that wants to be able to attain the best things in life by not harming another to get it. The fastest way to their happiness is by theft in its miriad of ways or violence. We have become an honorless nation and we deserve whatever comes down the pike.

Rationality, sanity, wisdom come from the ability of a person to critically differentiate between "it feels good" and "it is good". The latter destination requires functioning cognitive apparatus, moral compass, cause-effect reasoning, logic, willing self-education, effort. The former destination does not require much of anything. At some level, maybe all this complex maneuvering, cornering, attracting voters makes sense. At some other, not so much.

"Behind all our failure to find light is an unconfessed and possibly an unconscious love of darkness." ~A.W. Tozer

If voter fraud was as key as it seems, how did the Republicans keep the House? And why isn't the Senate 60/40 again? Why, when they have the entire media on their side would they not just take the whole thing?

This is all very well and good, however, the fist issue to tackle, and it is a huge one,is voter fraud.

Until we conquer that, we will not really knowwhat the underlying situation is.

I am of the opinion that Romney would have won as the ABO crowd came out in droves. And nothing is done about it because the repubs participate in voter fraud as well, however,have not perfected the art like the democraps have.

I recall reading why a nasty letter to a company is usually taken very seriously - it has to do with the premise that there are a thousand more people who also have objections to the product/service, etc., however, did not write a letter about it.

And now we have all these eye witness reports on machines mistakenly voting for Obama, voters being told they already voted, voters being told whom to vote for, vote counts being suppressed for Romney, vote counts being inflated for Obama, etc. etc.

Then multiply each of these complaints by a thousand. See my point?

I belive it was Joseph Stalin who said that it didn't matter who voted, it only mattered who counted the votes.

i don't think 47% is correct number, especially when we paid attention to massive vote fraud with huge numbers like 141% in Florida (along with other key states. if not fraud (if it's really massive) Romney should win that election

Wonderfully written, but somewhat at odds with the sad reality. Let me tell you why. If the people you want to convince had the intellectual capacity to buy your arguments,they would not have re-elected Obama this time. All they know is "gimme" and Obama seems cooler, because Rap stars support him. We have become moron nation. What it will take is an incredible disaster of some sort, and unfortunately on that point Obama is on track to produce one, whether it be financial, national security, or health care.

Anonymous seems to believe that if everyone does not vote like he voted [believe as he believes], then they are not smart. In his words 'intellectual capacity' is not high enough I suppose. We all must have the same opinion to be right. No different opinion is allowed anymore.

If about Democrat policies are truly faulty and unsustainable, the extremity of our present problems will impose a fiscal and social implosion in the days ahead. Two years from now should be just about the right time for conscientious Americans of any party to find some good sense and turn back to the still small voice of reason and prudence. Your strategy for community organizing, if implemented, should be enough impetus to make the necessary difference in 2014. Although, from my perspective, "community" organizing actually translates to "church" and "synagogue" networking.

"Organizing" for Conservatives, at least along the line you suggest, would be a lot like herding cats. Good luck with that.

who is it exactly you are going after with your message? The Conservative message is one of enlightened self-interest through the application of universally applied principals. Like the rule of law. Like private property rights. Like the right of the individual to succeed or fail on their own merits and actions.

The Libfilth message is the exact opposite - Ever smaller granulated laws applied to ever finer slices of society. Nothing is universal and nothing is to be universally applied, except the universality of an atomized society. Every problem, according to Libfilth theory, has a most perfect solution and the Libfilth know just how to achieve it. Everyone is "special". Society is granulated into ever smaller tribes and alliegences until the society degenerates into endemic corruption and endlessly squabbling tribes at each others throats. Welcome to Libfilth land.

Conservatives are already well aware of Conservative ideas and principals, so who is it you are trying to reach? About 25% of the population is never going to accept more than cursory responsibility for their lives and will remain the victim-prop army of the Libfilth. Its a rational bargain for them. About 40% of the population are Conservatives and already know (and accept) most of what you would want to inculcate them with. That leaves about 35% of the country as clueless morons who fear, more than anything else, being ostracized by their friends and family for not accepting the bright shining lies of the Libfilth as presented by the Libfilth infotainment machine. Yes, those much vaunted "independents" who are the deciding factor in every election now are primarily clueless morons who only know what they learn from the Libfilth infotainment machine. Those are the people you propose to go after with a message of self-interest through universally applied principals? HA! Unless you have a sufficient footprint in the media, you don't stand a chance. THIS is the real war.

Reagan did a masterful job of communicating Conservative principals to the masses but I believe he could not be elected president today. There are just to many dregs and too many twit-sters who believe the magical lie and the Libfilth premise that life can be "perfected".

I do enjoy reading your articles, but I know my posts are just too long and I will not be posting again. I wish you luck with your efforts.

The flash mob voter fraud was off the charts. The GOP gets to keep some House crumbs and some house districts are not corrupt. The Dems have learned Cloward Piven to overwhelm the system especially close to the polls closing. Drive illegals and other people around in vans on state borders. The GOP was blindsided and silent. Welcome to the USARR. We are serfs and slaves because are votes do not count.

Daniel, your blog is definitely one of the most dangerous things for the survival of this nation .. one can just open a web browser and instantly find answers, which endangers independent thinking even among those few capable of it, see what I mean? :)

"The Republican Party has two choices. It can chase after the center, with amnesty and tax cuts in hand, or it can move to the right in order to redefine where the center is." .. from A Conservative Sellout Is Not the Solution

"Organizing" for Conservatives, at least along the line you suggest, would be a lot like herding cats. Good luck with that."

It can happen IF Conservatives don't alienate people who aren't willing to tow the party line 100-percent. If the Conservatives can remain somewhat flexible it is possible otherwise we'll see a repeat of this election.

Some good points here Sultan but you forgot to factor in the lying, cheating, propaganda-throwing thuggery of the Democrats which alson came iinto operation. Their constant crowding of "the system" to break it, the encouragement of vilence, the co-option of much of the college youtuh by making their attendance at rallies compulsory and their marks dependent on regurgitating their porfessors' Marxist garbage.

I"m not suggesting thuggery at all - but much of your tactical suggestion leaves out the very great amount of corruption that is responsible for this mess - not to mention the original chain of funding down the generations for Sovietisation of America, from just before the Carnegie/Rockefeller Foundations to Regan and bush's agreement to various Soviet-sharing agreements. (Charlotte Iserbyt has revealed much of this in her writings and videos.)

We need also to be far more aware of the disgusting damge the UN has inflicted on the USa and is and will inflict on the rest of the world via Agenda 21 and iclei.org(See Henry Lamb and Rosa Koire on youtube. RK's book on this is Behind the Green Mask).

The UN, and thr Soviets, and their Republican allies, helped to deliver the country to the descendants and operatives of the Soviets/KGB, and they did so with no compunction or with very little appreciation of what it would mean.No excuse.

These underround elements need to be taken into account as well as the more social aspects of victory.

Personally, I still don't understand why OBamam has not undergone a citizen's arrest by some enthusisastic patriot and his entourage.Too much security around the Prez?I